AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—As both the Writ Petitions relate to common pig farm run by Mr. Vijayan, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13757 of
2009 and the fourth respondent in W.P. No. 10911 of 2009, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
W.P. No. 10911 of 2009 is filed by Someshkandar (hereinafter referred to as ''the petitioner'') for a direction on the first and second
respondents to decide his complaint, dated 5.1.2009 and reminders dated 14.4.2009 and 4.5.2009 filed thereto, thereby to remove the pig farm
run by Mr. Vijayan (hereinafter referred to as ''the fourth respondent'') in Vivekananda Road, Mekkalathottam, Subbanaicken Pudur, Coimbatore.
During the pendency of W.P. No. 10911 of 2009, the Executive Officer of Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat, Chinnavedampatti,
Coimbatore, by notice dated 17.7.2009, having asked the fourth respondent-Vijayan to remove the pig farm, the other Writ Petition in W.P. No.
13757 of 2009 has been preferred by the said fourth respondent-Vijayan.
According to the petitioner-Someshkandar, as the pig farm is causing health hazard to the general public, the Executive Officer of
Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat, Chinnavedampatti, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as ''the Town Panchayat'') rightly issued the impugned
notice dated 17.7.2009, directing the fourth respondent-Vijayan to remove the pig farm. Further, the fourth respondent-Vijayan cannot run the pig
farm without licence obtained from the Town Panchayat.
On the other hand, the stand taken by the fourth respondent-Vijayan is that no health hazard is caused to the general public due to the pig farm
in question. All the time, reports were submitted by the concerned Doctors of the Health Department, giving chit in favour of the maintenance of
the pigs in the farm. The further stand taken by the counsel for the fourth respondent-Vijayan is that the pig farm is being run since 1982 and the
petitioner-Someshkandar, who is a builder, is constructing the multi-storey buildings nearby the pig farm and now asking to remove the pig farm
from the area in question, which should not be permitted by the Court.
Learned Counsel appearing for the parties relied on one or other provisions of law and facts in support of their claim. We have heard the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the relevant facts and the provisions of law.
It appears that the fourth respondent-Vijayan is a certificate holder of the piggery unit issued by the Admiral Livestock Farm, Pollachi
(Coimbatore District). The Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Industries and Commerce, has also issued a certificate under Prime
Minister''s Rozgar Yojna Programme. He obtained loan under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojna Programme from the Indian Overseas Bank and
started the pig farm in the year 1982 on his own land. Ever since the commencement of the piggery unit, he maintained the unit without any health
hazard. It appears that the Officers, such as Deputy Director of Health Services, Coimbatore also visited the fourth respondent-Vijayan''s piggery
unit on 26.6.1996 and issued a letter that the pig farm is very clean without any health hazard and the fourth respondent-Vijayan is maintaining the
pigs as per law. It is also claimed by the fourth respondent-Vijayan that every three months, he is giving medicines to the pigs and periodically,
those pigs are checked-up by the Veterinary Doctors, who have also given Certificates. The pig farm supplies the pigs to the Meat Product of
India Limited, Kerala, a Government of Kerala undertaking. Even the All India Radio invited the fourth respondent for interview, by letter dated
4.10.1993. The allegation of the fourth respondent is that some persons like the petitioner, have purchased the properties nearby the piggery unit
recently and they are forming lay-outs and they are sending petitions to different Departments to remove the piggery unit on the ground of health
hazard, though there is no such health hazard caused to any of the individuals.
The stand taken by the other respondents is that the Health Inspector, Government Primary Health Centre, Vellakinaru, Coimbatore, has
submitted a report, vide letter dated 3.7.2009 to the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat, stating that in view of the ''swine flu'' which is
causing in different States, the matter was investigated and it was found that foul smell emanates from the pig farm and the transmission of infectious
disease may arise. It is in this background, the impugned notice has been issued on 17.7.2009 for removal of the pig farm from the locality in
question.
While according to the petitioner-Someshkandar, licence is required to run a pig farm, per contra, the stand of the fourth respondent-Vijayan is
that the pig farm having been opened in 1982, no licence is required to be obtained.
To decide the aforesaid issue relating to obtaining of licence to run a pig farm and the power of the authority to take steps with regard to the
cattle farms like the pig farm, etc., if it causes health hazard, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of law, as discussed hereunder.
The Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, was originally applicable to the Municipalities. After the constitution of the Town
Panchayats, Chapter I-B was inserted by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2006 (Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006), and u/s
3AA, the State Government has been empowered to issue Notification, directing that any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made under
the Act or of any other enactment for the time being in force elsewhere in the State of Tamil Nadu, but not in the Panchayat Town, shall apply to
that Town Panchayat to such extent and subject to such modification, additions and restrictions, as may be specified in the Notification.
It appears that by Chapter I-A, the provisions relating to the Third Grade Municipalities were inserted by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities
(Amendment) Act, 1994 (Tamil Nadu Act 25 of 1994) and u/s 3M of the said Chapter, a provision was made to apply the Act to the Third Grade
Municipalities.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3M, it further appears that the provisions of the Act, 1920, were extended to all the Town
Panchayats in the State by G.O.Ms. No. 75, M.A. & W.S. Department, dated 31.3.1995. However, it has not been made clear as to how the
said G.O. can be construed to be an order issued u/s 3AA of the Act, which was inserted by Chapter 1-B and thereby, it can be given effect to
the Town Panchayats.
Chapter XII of Act, 1920, relates to licences and fees. u/s 245(1), the owner or occupier of any stable, veterinary, infirmary, stand, shed, yard, or
other place in which quadrupeds are kept or taken in for purposes of profit, is required to apply to the Executive Authority for licence for opening
of such place or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed.
Under Section 245(2), the Executive Authority may, by, an order, and under such restrictions or regulations, grant or refuse to grant such licence.
Under Section 245(3), no person shall, without or otherwise than in conformity with a licence, use any place for such a purpose.
Chapter XVI of Act, 1920, relates to procedure and miscellaneous; regarding the licences and permissions, u/s 321(9A), every application for
licence or permission or for registration of the renewal of a licence or permission or registration, is required to be made not less than 30 and not
more than 90 days before the commencement of the year or of such less period as is mentioned in the application.
Under Section 338, the consequences of failure to obtain licences etc., or of breach of the same, have been prescribed and under Clause (a) to
Section 338, in case of such breach, the Executive Authority may by notice, require a person so doing such act to alter, remove or as far as
practicable, restore to its original state, the whole or any part of any property, movable or immovable, public or private, affected thereby, within a
time to be specified in the notice.
Under Clause (b) of Section 338, if no penalty has been specifically provided under the Act for so doing such act, the person so doing it shall be
liable on conviction before a Magistrate to pay a fine not exceeding Rs. 50/- for every such offence.
Referring to the aforesaid provisions, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-Someshkandar submitted that without the licence, the
fourth respondent-Vijayan cannot run the pig farm. He referred to G.O.Ms. No. 75, M.A. & W.S. Department, dated 31.3.1995 to show that the
Act, 1920 has been made applicable for the Town Panchayats. From the aforesaid G.O., it appears that the same was issued in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 3M of the Act, 1920, in the year 1995, whereas by Chapter I-B, the Town Panchayats have been inserted and have
come into effect in 2006 and only u/s 3AA, the Act, 1920 can be given effect to the Town Panchayats, thereby, it has not been made clear by
either of the respondents as to how the said G.O., dated 31.3.1995 can be referred to for giving effect to the Town Panchayats, which were
inserted vide Chapter I-B, vide Tamil Nadu Act 18 of 2006 by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Amendment) Act, 2006.
It will be evident from the impugned notice dated 17.7.2009 that the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat has ordered to remove the pig
farm not on the ground that the fourth respondent-Vijayan does not have any licence under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, but on the
ground of safeguard of health of the general public and by the powers conferred u/s 61 of Chapter-7 of the Public Health Act, 1939. Therefore,
the petitioner-Someshkandar cannot take a plea that because no licence has been obtained, the fourth respondent-Vijayan has been ordered to
remove the pig farm.
The Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 was enacted to make provision for advancing the public health of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Chapter VI deals with abatement of nuisance. u/s 41 therein, certain things are prescribed to be nuisance. u/s 41(3), any animal kept in such a
place or manner, as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance, has been prescribed to be a ''nuisance''.
The Health Officer has been empowered to abate nuisance u/s 44. Whether upon information given u/s 43 or otherwise, of the existence of a
nuisance, the Health Officer, by notice, require a person by whose act, default or sufferance, the nuisance arises or continues or, if that person
cannot be found, the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises or continues, to abate the nuisance and to execute such
works and take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose.
The local authority has also been empowered to abate nuisance u/s 45 and the person on whom a notice to abate nuisance has been served u/s 44,
makes default in complying with any of its requirement within the time specified therein, or if the nuisance although abated within such time, is likely
to recur on the same premises and for that, the local authority may arrange for the execution of any works necessary to abate the nuisance or to
prevent its recurrence, as the case may be and may recover the cost from such person as if it were a tax due to the local authority.
Thus, it will be evident that the Health Officer and the local authority are empowered to abate any nuisance including the nuisance if committed due
to the animals kept in a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health of the public in general. Under the said provisions, it is always open to the
Town Panchayat to take action against any person.
Under Section 61, provision has been made for prevention of infectious disease transmissible from animals. If in any local area, any infectious
disease transmissible to man breaks out or is in the opinion of the Health Officer likely to break out, amongst cattle, or other animals, it shall be the
duty of the Health Officer to recommend to the local authority the adoption of such measures as he may deem necessary for suppressing or
mitigating the disease or for preventing the outbreak or threatened outbreak thereof; and the local authority shall consider such recommendations
and take such action thereon as to it may seem suitable. It is under this provisions of the Act (Section 61), the impugned notice has been issued on
17.7.2009, directing the fourth respondent to remove the pig farm because of the health hazard.
In the present case, it appears that the petitioner-Someshkandar and the general public of the area, along with him, made application to the
District Collector, Coimbatore on 5.1.2009, to remove the pig farm in question, spreading the diseases in the area. It was alleged that more than
100 pigs are being grown and due to the pig waste, the food for the pig, the wastes due to the butchering of the pig flesh, a foul smell always
persist in the area and people are not able to eat their food. The matter was not taken up for a number of months and therefore, the petitioner-
Someshkandar moved before this Court in the Public Interest.
After the institution of the complaint, the matter was taken up by the Office of the Regional Joint Director of the Animal Husbandry
Department, Coimbatore and the Deputy Director, Office of Health Services, Coimbatore. Thereafter, the Health Inspector, Government Primary
Health Centre, Vellakinaru, Coimbatore District, giving reference to ""Swine Flu"" and steps of preventive measures therein, by his letter dated
3.7.2009, referring to Sections 41, 43 and 45 of the General Health Act, 1939, informed the Executive Officer of Chinnavedampatti Town
Panchayat, Coimbatore, that the fourth respondent-Vijayan is rearing 50 pigs and food waste was given as feed to them, because of which foul
smell emanates and there is a chance of transmission of infectious diseases. For proper appreciation of the matter, the English translation of the
letter dated 3.7.2009 is quoted hereunder:
From
K.Vadivel,
Health Inspector,
Government Primary Health Center,
Vellakinaru.
To
The Executive Officer,
Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat,
Coimbatore.
Sir,
Sub: Public Health--Swine Flu--Steps for preventive measures-Reg.
Ref: 1) Na.Ka. No. 4991/Aa2/09, dated 19.05.09 of the Office of the
Regional Joint Director,
Animal Husbandry Department,
Coimbatore.
2) Na.Ka. No. 1222/A8/09, dated
16.6.09 of the Deputy Director,
Office of Health Services,
Coimbatore.
-----
From the above references, within the limits of the Primary Health Center, when a census was taken to check out for the presence and available
number of pigs, came to know that in the following address a person is running a pig farm:
R. Vijayan,
S/o C.V. Raju,
10/A, Vivekanandar Road,
Subbanaickenpudur, Chinnavedampatti,
Coimbatore-641 006.
He is rearing 50 pigs. Food wastes were given as feed to them, because of which foul smell emanates.
Further transmission of infectious diseases may arise. Hence by below mentioned provisions of General Health Act, 1939, I request to remove the
pigs to some other place.
In General Health Act, 1939--Chapter 6, Sections 41, 43, 45, Animal kept under room custody or in a place causing grievances, hazards to the
health can be evicted u/s 45. Moreover u/s 61 of the General Health Act, 1939, the local administrative body can execute the eviction of pigs
towards prevention of the health hazards relating to that area. Hence it is recommended to evict the pigs found by using the above said Act.
Sd/-
K.Vadivel,
Health Inspector,
Government Primary Health Center,
Vellakinar,
Coimbatore-641 029.
Place: Vellakinar
Date : 03.07.2009
In view of the aforesaid letter dated 3.7.2009, the impugned notice dated 17.7.2009 was issued by the Executive Officer of the Town
Panchayat, the English translation of which is quoted hereunder:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHINNAVEDAMPATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT
IN THE PRESENCE OF Mr. P.Jagadeesan
Na.Ka. No. 7/2009 Date:17.07.2009
NOTICE
Sub: Public Grievance Redressal Day
Petition--Chinnavedampatti Town
Panchayat--Pig Farm in the
residential area--Removal and
auction--Reg.
Ref: 1. Letter of this Office
Na.Ka. No. 7/2009, dated 06.07.2009.
Opinion of the Government Advocate,
dated 17.07.2009.
------
Under Reference 1, order has been issued directing you to remove the piggery farm causing health hazards to the general public within 7 days. But
till date the piggery farm was not removed, because of which there is possibility of transmission of diseases to the general public.
Hence notice is hereby given to you to remove the pig farm within 24 hours and report the same to this Office. Otherwise, in order to safeguard the
health of the general public and by the powers granted under the Public Health Act, 1939, Chapter 7, Section 61, the pigs would be removed and
auctioned on the same date and place.
Sd/-
Executive Officer,
Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat,
Chinnavedampatti.
To
Mrs. V. Vimala and Mr. R. Vijayan,
10/5, Nanjukutti Layout,
Subbanaickenpudur,
Chinnavedampatti.
Copy:
Submitted to the District Collector, Coimbatore.
Submitted for information to the Assistant Director, Town Panchayats, Coimbatore.
The Inspector of Police, B9 Police Station,
Saravanampatti Coimbatore.
From the subject matter of the letter dated 3.7.2009, it will be evident that the Health Officer kept in his mind the public health in view of the
Swine Flu and the steps for preventive measures. Though such a reference of Swine Flu is given in the subject matter, only on the ground that the
food waste is given to feed 50 pigs and foul smell emanates, it was opined therein that further transmission of infectious diseases may arise. The
said letter was accepted as gospel truth by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat and he issued the impugned show cause notice dated
17.7.2009.
Section 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, defines the ''Health Officer'', which means ''the Health Officer employed by the
local authority concerned and if there is no such Officer, the Health Officer of the District. It has not been made clear whether the Town Panchayat
in question has appointed any Health Officer, nor it has been made clear as to whether the Health Inspector in question of the Government Primary
Health Centre, Vellaikinaru, Coimbatore District, is the Health Officer of the District of Coimbatore. Therefore, there is a doubt with regard to the
jurisdiction of the Health Inspector to give any finding u/s 43 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939.
u/s 43 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, information regarding the nuisance is to be given by any person to the Health Officer or
other Officer of the Public Health Establishment of the local authority. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner-
Someshkandar has given any information to the Health Officer of the Town Panchayat or to the Health Officer of the District or to any other
Officer of the Public Health Establishment of the Town Panchayat. A representation dated 5.1.2009 was filed before the District Collector,
Coimbatore.
u/s 44 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, even on information given u/s 43 or otherwise of the existence of a nuisance, the Health
Officer has power to abate the nuisance, but for exercising such power, a notice is required to be given to the person by whose act or default or
sufferance, the nuisance arises or continues or if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier of the premises on which the nuisance arises
or continues.
There is nothing on record to suggest, including the letter dated 3.7.2009 that the Health Officer has given any notice to the fourth respondent-
Vijayan, alleging that because of any act of him or default, sufferance or nuisance arose or continues in the pig farm. Similarly, there is no such
document on record to show that the local authority has given any notice to the fourth respondent-Vijayan u/s 45 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health
Act, 1939, alleging that the notice to abate nuisance has been served upon him u/s 44 and he is a defaulter in complying with any of its
requirements within the time specified therein. Without following the procedures, the impugned letter dated 3.7.2009 was issued, followed by the
impugned notice dated 17.7.2009 issued by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat.
Now, coming to what is the ''nuisance'' committed by the piggery unit and keeping the animals in such piggery farm is prejudicial to the health
of persons, have not been explained. Apart from the fact that it has not been made clear as to whether the Health Inspector is the ""Health Officer
for the purposes of Section 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, there is nothing on record to suggest that he has applied his mind to
find out the ''nuisance'' committed by the pig farm or the health hazard which may cause to the public in general. It has already been pointed out
that only a reference of ""Swine Flu"" is given in the subject matter of the letter dated 3.7.2009, but no steps for preventive measures have been
shown therein.
""Swine Flu"" is a disease of recent origin, a communicable disease, transmitted from person to person. It has been declared as an ""endemic"" in
many of the countries by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and also in the States in India. But no general guidelines or instructions have been
brought to the notice of this Court purported to have been issued by the Central Government or State Government or by the District authorities
with regard to the preventive measures to be taken from spreading endemics like Swine Flu, Bird Flu, Mad Cow Disease, etc., from the animals
like the pigs in the pig farm, cattle farm, poultry, etc. Swine Flu does not all the time mean that the infection is generated from Swine. The infection
can also be transmitted from person to person.
Swine influenza virus is common throughout pig populations worldwide. Transmission of the virus from pigs to humans is not common and does
not always lead to human influenza, often resulting only in the production of antibodies in the blood. If transmission does cause human influenza, it is
called zoonotic swine flu. People with regular exposure to pigs are at increased risk of swine flu infection. The meat of an infected animal poses no
risk of infection when properly cooked.
Without the aforesaid knowledge and without discussing the provisions of law, in a mechanical manner, the Health Inspector has issued the
impugned letter dated 3.7.2009. It is evident that no enquiry was made before issuance of the impugned letter dated 3.7.2009 and no reasons
have been shown and merely on the basis of the surmises and conjectures and presumption that the infectious diseases may arise on the basis of
the foul smell coming out of the pig food, the Health Inspector has issued the impugned letter dated 3.7.2009.
The petitioner-Someshkandar has stated that the fourth respondent-Vijayan has been slaughtering the pigs in the farm. On the other hand,
specific plea has been taken by the fourth respondent-Vijayan that no slaughtering is being made and there is no slaughter house and he only sells
the pigs to other farms like the Meat Product of India Limited, at Kerala.
Specific stand has also been taken by the fourth respondent-Vijayan that every three months, pigs have been checked by the Veterinary
Doctors. This has also been noticed by the Executive Officer of Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat, Coimbatore, who by his letter dated
19.1.2009, has specifically informed the Assistant Director of the Town Panchayats, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore-18, that he made enquiries
and thereby submitted a report in favour of the pig farm, as is evident from the English translation of the said letter dated 19.1.2009, and quoted
hereunder:
From To
Mr.P.Jegadeesan, The Assistant Director,
Executive Officer, Town Panchayats,
Chinnavedampatti Coimbatore Zone,
Town Panchayat, Coimbatore-18.
Coimbatore-6.
---Na.Ka. No. 7/2009 Dated 19.01.2009
Sub: Public Grievance Redressal Day Petition--Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat--Pig Farm in the residential area--seeking removal--
submission of the details of action taken--Reg.
Ref: 1. Public Grievance Redressal Day Petition No. 48, dated 05.01.2009.
Letter of this Office
Na.Ka. No. 7/2009 dated 09.01.2009.
Reply of Mrs.Vimala, W/o Mr. Vijayan, 10/5, Nanjukutti Layout, Subbanaickenpudur, dated 19.01.2008.
-----
Under Reference 1, the General Public residing at Subbanaickenpudur on the Public Grievance Redressal Day had requested to remove the pig
farm causing danger to the general public health in their residential area. Under Reference 2, notice has been given with the instruction to remove
the pig farm. Under Reference 3, a reply is given to the effect that the said pig farm is maintained without causing health hazards with appropriate
measures, to that effect a certificate is received from Veterinary Officer and Medical Officer. Further in the piggery unit there is no slaughtering of
pigs, the waste of the pigs were disposed off in a hygienic manner. Further the photocopy of the certificates was annexed by you.
Inspite of it, the owner of the piggery unit is instructed to maintain the pig farm hygienically and ensuring no foul smell arises. I respectfully place the
above report for your reference.
Sd/-
Executive Officer,
Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat,
Chinnavedampatti.
Annexure:
Reply Letter of Mrs.Vimala and
photocopy of the Certificates.
In the subsequent enquiry also, it was found that the piggery unit is not slaughtering any pig and that the waste of the pigs are disposed of in a
hygienic manner and the pigs of the farm are maintained without causing any health hazard. In this background, by notice dated 16.3.2009, the
Executive Officer of Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat has advised the fourth respondent-Vijayan on spot inspection to maintain the piggery unit
hygienically; not to slaughter the pigs in the piggery unit; to dispose of the waste of the pigs immediately and to maintain the piggery unit without
causing hindrance to the public in general. The aforesaid letter dated 16.3.2009 is also quoted hereunder:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
CHINNAVEDAMPATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT
IN THE PRESENCE OF Mr. P.Jagadeesan
Na.Ka. No. 7/2009 Date: 16.03.2009
NOTICE
Sub: Public Grievance Redressal Day Petition-- Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat--Pig Farm in the residential area--seeking removal--
submission of the details of action taken--Reg.
Ref: 1. Public Grievance Redressal Day Petition
No. 48, dated 05.01.2009.
Letter of this Office
Na.Ka. No. 7/2009, dated 09.01.2009.
Reply of Mrs.Vimala,
W/o Mr. Vijayan,
10/5,Nanjukutti Layout,Subbanaickenpudur,
dated 19.01.2008.
Spot inspection of the Assistant Director,
Town Panchayats, dated 13.03.2009.
-----
Under Reference 1, the General Public on the Public Grievance Redressal Day had requested to remove the pig farm causing danger to the general
public health in their residential area. Under Reference 2, notice has been given with the instruction to remove the pig farm. Under Reference 3, a
reply is given to the effect that the said pig farm is maintained without causing health hazards with appropriate measures, to that effect a certificate is
received from Veterinary Officer and Medical Officer. Further in the piggery unit there is no slaughtering of pigs, the waste of the pigs were
disposed off in a hygienic manner. Further the photocopy of the certificates was annexed by you.
Under Reference 4, the Assistant Director, Town Panchayats on 13.03.2009 on his spot inspection had given the following instructions to you:
1) The piggery unit had to be maintained hygienically without causing any health hazards to the general public.
2) Pigs should not be slaughtered in the piggery unit.
3) The waste of the pigs had to be disposed off immediately and should be maintained cleanly ensuring no foul smell arises.
4) The piggery unit should be maintained without causing any hindrance to the general public.
It is brought to your notice that if the above instructions were not followed, appropriate action would be taken.
Sd/-
Executive Officer
Chinnavedampatti Town Panchayat
Chinnavedampatti.
To
Mrs. V. Vimala,
W/o Mr. R. Vijayan,
10/5, Nanjukutti Layout,
Subbanaickenpudur,
Chinnavedampatti.
From the aforesaid letter dated 19.1.2009 and notice 16.3.2009, it would be evident that the allegations made by the petitioner-
Someshkandar was found to be incorrect, but somehow or otherwise, and for the reasons best known to the respondents, the Health Inspector,
whose jurisdiction is also not made clear, has given a vague adverse report against the fourth respondent-Vijayan to ensure that the piggery unit of
the fourth respondent is closed, which was acted upon mechanically by the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat without application of mind,
who issued the impugned notice dated 17.7.2009.
For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the report/letter dated 3.7.2009 issued by the Health Inspector of the Government Primary Health
Centre, Vellakinaru, Coimbatore District and the impugned notice dated 17.7.2009 issued by the Executive Officer of Chinnavedampatti Town
Panchayat and allow the prayer made by Vijayan in W.P. No. 13757 of 2009 and reject the prayer made by Someshkandar in W.P. No. 10911
of 2009. However, a direction is given to the fourth respondent-Vijayan to maintain the piggery unit hygienically without causing any health hazard
to the general public; not to slaughter any pig inside the piggery unit; dispose of the pigs'' waste immediately in hygienic manner so as to ensure that
no foul smell arises in the area and to maintain the piggery unit/pig farm without causing any hindrance to the general pubic. Liberty is also given to
the concerned Town Panchayat and its authorities, including the Health Officer, as defined u/s 3(14) of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, if
so required to give notice to the fourth respondent-Vijayan and inspect the premises in question (pig farm) to find out as to whether the piggery
unit/pig farm is maintained hygienically without causing health hazard to the general public and that no slaughtering is done within the piggery unit/pig
farm and that the waste of the pigs is disposed of immediately so as to ensure that no foul smell arises.
W.P. No. 10911 of 2009 is dismissed and W.P. No. 13757 of 2009 is allowed, with the aforesaid observations/directions. No costs. In view
of the findings aforesaid and observations/directions, as above, there is no question of appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the
physical features of the pig farm, as sought for in M.P. No. 2 of 2009 in W.P. No. 10911 of 2009 and the same is closed. The other
Miscellaneous Petitions are also accordingly closed.